drebbel's living instruments, hartmann's microcosm, and libavius's ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

60 · VERA KELLERin light of the Hermetic Emerald Tablet, Basil Valentine, and Michael Sendivogius.Through the successive conversion of the “elements”, the “rota elementorum”, theearth could be brought into a ferment, and the motion of the heat would impel itspurer parts towards the surface. Nollius however, as a vitalist, claimed that duringthese chemical processes the soul of the world linked to the sun would be “impressed”into matter (“animamque universi e Sole in ipsam affatim singulari artificio impresseris”).Thus Drebbel’s perpetual motion was alive and a true microcosm, showingthe actual motions of the heavens. 121Nollius recommended that the student of astronomy consult such a living globe inthe Hermetic physics (one of several works included in Sanctuary of nature). Therehe described two different types of spheres. One was merely imitative; through it,the student could quickly learn the traditional doctrine of the sphere. However, thestudent could never gain new knowledge of the cosmos from a merely imitativerepresentation. The second type of globe was a living microcosm, in which all theheavenly bodies were moved by the universal spirit just as in heaven. Both the Rosicrucianglobe and Drebbel’s sphere were of this type. “In England”, said Nollius,“a perpetuum mobile is to be seen, which similarly represents the entire world, andshows in a wonderful way the motions of the stars, the conjunctions and oppositionsof the planets and even the disposition of inferior things, with precision. The authorof this perpetual motion is Cornelius Drebel, a Philosopher not to be despised”. 122Nollius advised his students to seek out philosophers who had built their microcosmswith their own hands (“manu sua”), like Drebbel, who boasted that his knowledgecame from his hands (“Dieses lieber Bruder habe ich von der natur geschriben wieich solches mit der handt befunden”). 123Daniel Mögling, a scion of eminent Tübingen academics and future court physicianto Landgrave Philipp III of Hessen-Butzbach, repeated Nollius’s advice. 124 In his Perpetuummobile of 1625, Mögling cited Hartmann, Vranckheim, and others on Drebbel’scosmoscope. He also directed the reader who wished to understand Drebbel’s deviceto consider the retort described in Chapter Four of Drebbel’s short On the nature ofthe elements (“Wer mehrere Nachrichtung begehret, lese das kurtz ...Von Natur derElementen ... vornemblich aber das vierdt Capittel desselven von der Retorten”). 125Like Drebbel, Mögling built his own machine through his knowledge of naturalmagic rather than mechanics, and therefore claimed it was not open to accusations ofimpossibility. Although it could be applied to mechanical purposes, Mögling preferredthat it serve nobler ends. Instead he suggested that it serve as a sort of Rosicrucianmicrocosm, showing the motion of everything from the planets to the tides. Thus,merely by playing with it, schoolchildren could gain an immediate knowledge ofnature without difficult mathematical calculations. 126 Indeed, in one of his Rosicrucianpamphlets, the Prodromus rhodo-stauroticus, Mögling suggested, in a directtranslation of Nollius’s advice, that he who wished to understand the harmony of themacrocosm should seek out those philosophers who have themselves built perpetualmotions, since such devices showed as in a compendium the motion of heaven, theelements, and the natures and properties of all things. 127
DREBBEL’S LIVING INSTRUMENTS · 61CONCLUSIONIn the early seventeenth century, the authority of the cosmoscope and of the artisanalphilosopher who constructed it grew from the union between matter and form, practiceand theory, and mechanics, physics, and chemistry. Such a blend proved potentwithin the new hybrid discipline of academic alchemy. A distinctive Ramist preferencefor pedagogical ease, comprehensiveness, certainty, and practice coupled withvital philosophy encouraged pedagogues to introduce “living instruments” into theircurricula. Within these animated microcosms, they hoped to show their students allthe laws of the macrocosm, as though within the Rosicrucian microcosm.The popularity of the cosmoscope as a single construction proving a pansophicphilosophy grew out of the academic alchemists’ quest to reform knowledge throughartisanal practice. This suggested great respect for the maker of these epistemicmachines and necessitated a close attention to the artisan’s own philosophy andinterpretation of the device. Academic alchemists and others in the orbit of JohannHartmann pointed out the relationship between Drebbel’s retort demonstration in Onthe nature of the elements and his perpetual motion. They recognized that the centralhollow globe of the perpetual motion contained air which, by rarefying or condensing,pushed the water in the attached glass tube back and forth. However, this recognitionof the relationship between the perpetual motion and Drebbel’s theory of the elementsdid not necessitate a mechanical interpretation of the machine. Rather, this group ofinterpreters shared a particular metaphysical foundation for their understanding ofelementary transmutation.They argued that Drebbel, employing the spirt of the world, had attracted a vital fireinto an artificial object, thus animating it. It was this heat which provided the constantsource of motion for the chain of elements contained in the machine. Since this heatwas drawn from the celestial fire, it also explained the machine’s correspondenceto the sun and to the motion of the other heavenly bodies. As a living microcosm,the machine therefore gave direct access to the real movements of the macrocosm,suggesting thrilling philosophical and pedagogical possibilities.Hartmann’s rival Andreas Libavius also interpreted Drebbel’s machine in light ofthis second, non-elementary occult heat. However, he denied the heat’s metaphysicalvital and formal qualities. The fact that Drebbel employed hidden forms of heat withinthe chemicals contained in his machine did not grant the machine a soul. It also didnot connect the machine to the macrocosm, and thus provided no certain knowledgeof the structure and movement of the heavens. Libavius addressed this question in his1612 dissertation on the perpetual motion. Since philosophers themselves were stilldisputing the structure of the heavens, there was no way a machine could be built togive certain knowledge of the actual heavens. At best, the machine could representprobable theories, such as Copernicanism, but it could not lead to new knowledge ofnature. 128 It could not, as so many hoped, resolve all disputes and usher in a new ageof Edenic knowledge. The details of Drebbel’s process for the philosopher’s stonecould be uncovered only through the careful collation of Drebbel’s works with anextensive alchemical corpus, rather than the simple observation of nature nude.
Page 1 and 2: Hist. Sci., xlviii (2010)DREBBEL’
Page 3 and 4: DREBBEL’S LIVING INSTRUMENTS · 4
Page 21: DREBBEL’S LIVING INSTRUMENTS · 5

drebbel's living instruments, hartmann's microcosm, and libavius's ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?